4
comments:

Is it not significant that we were once number 6, and are now number 24?

Nunavut probably doesn't explain it given that it's been there for a while, and there are only about 30000 people there.

It sounds (from the article) like we all have a thing or two to learn from the Estonians and the Japanese.

Or we could "pick apart" the numbers and pretend nothing has changed or that nothing can be done. Or that nothing needs to be done other than hope that "little wiley white man's" good example will be followed.

I think the international and interprovincial differences show that these figures (like child mortality) are more affected by different government policies rather than by different cultural or racial communities.

To stick with the Aboriginal Canadian example:

- "[I]n Quebec the representation of Aboriginal adults in provincial and territorial sentenced custody is two times their representation in the province’s general population. In Saskatchewan, the representation is seven times greater."*

P.S. I won't be surprised if you are accused of "racism" by someone on account of the "wiley white man" comment. Though I suspect you won't be surprised either. (The reference to "learning" alludes, probably unintentionally, to the residential schools).

I'm guessing that Quebec is more generous to their natives but I could be wrong about that? Many native communities are remote and isolated yet even so they are subjected to strong influences from the outside world via television etc. The young people in general find the reserve life boring and in fact there isn't much to do from what I hear on most reserves. Welfare and nothing to do combined with little ambition or goals with readily available illicit substances means trouble. (real conservative)